4 ms·
What I hate most about this is that it puts unbounded liability onto developers. They can't control how often their game will be installed in the future. The ou
by zmmmmm 3y ago
What I hate most about this is that it puts unbounded liability onto developers. They can't control how often their game will be installed in the future. The outcome will likely be that the minute a game falls below a certain rate of sales they will be forced to make it unavailable because they can't risk the ongoing cost of the existing userbase continually reinstalling it. Every time a new platform or device is released, there will be a wave of people shifting their installs which will will generate cost for developers for no return, and windfall profits to Unity for doing absolutely nothing. They get the money even if the user never even opens the app, they just click the button saying "install all my apps from my old device on my new one". Which is what a lot of users will do.
- bhouston 3y ago> What I hate most about this is that it puts unbounded liability onto developers. And Unity can continue to raise the per-installation price as well. If they lose a bunch of customers but want to maintain their current income, why not raise it to $1 instead of just $0.27?
- labster 3y agoI’m pretty sure that would be an unconscionable contract at $1, not a mere unethical contract. The latter is legal, the former is not.
- Auracle 3y agoWouldn’t that depend on the income of the developer vs. how many installs they get? Surely even $.20 for someone that has a hit mobile game that sells for $.99 would be unconscionable. After App Store fees and accounting for potential multiple installs it could halve their income.
- labster 3y agoI didn’t actually make claim about the $0.20 case. Multiples of $1 is clearly too much for products that cost $0.99. But with America’s courts headed by an obviously illegitimate Supreme Court, who knows? The lesser amount could be pronounced legal.
- joshspankit 3y agoTIL about unconscionable contracts. What jurisdictions recognize this term and legally protect those who agree to them?
- johnfernow 3y agoActually, making it unavailable wouldn't even solve the problem, as once you purchase a game, even if it is no longer for sale on Steam, you can still redownload it, including to new devices. So if you've ever released a Unity game (even if it hasn't been updated in years), even if you delist your game from the store today, presumably you could still get charged if people who already own your game reinstall it. I'm not a lawyer, but I really don't see how that'd hold up in court — you created a product under different terms years ago, and now your product, which isn't even for sale, can be charged for something that your business has no control over. Even if the ToS says Unity reserves the right to change their fees, I don't see how that can apply to products that aren't even being sold anymore.